Means of Expressing and Implying Emotions and Impoliteness in Croatian and Montenegrin Public Discourse

Main Article Content

Ljiljana Šarić
Tatjana Radanović Felberg

Abstract

This article addresses means of expressing and implying emotions (Langlotz, Locher 2012) in realizations of impoliteness in written discourse thematizing language and identity in Croatian and Montenegrin media in 2010 and 2011. Realizations of impoliteness often relate to communicating an emotional stance that can trigger emotional responses in readers. Our discourse sample can be described as “disputes about language and identity” (cf. Felberg, Šarić 2013), which is largely characterized by conflictual disagreements. Conflictual disagreements, as Jones (2001) or Langlotz and Locher (2012) put it, do not leave one cold in face-to-face interaction: they arouse feelings of annoyance, irritation, anger, or contempt directed to the communicative partner. These observations are relevant in our context, although we deal with written discourse. The main participants in our data include well-known intellectuals, journalists, and editors. They all defend or attaca a position in discussing, among other things, “how similar ‘our’ language (Croatian/Montenegrin) is to ‘their’ language” (Serbian), and “what makes this language (Croatian/Montenegrin) a distinctive and independent entity”. These participants clearly position themselves in relation to other participants. Their positioning of the self and the other person involves negative identity-ascribing practices. Taking into consideration parameters such as the role of participants in discourse and society, context, co-text, and activity types in which discourse participants engaged, we identified various highly context-dependent types and functions of impoliteness realizations (cf. Šarić, Felberg 2015). Contrary to our expectations, the participants in the media discourse in both countries frequently use impoliteness both strategically and systematically while defending their positions. The impoliteness realizations point to emotively significant places in discourse. Their use has several functions: a prominent one is coercion through legitimizing one’s own standpoints and delegitimizing those of one’s opponents.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Šarić, L., & Radanović Felberg, T. (2015). Means of Expressing and Implying Emotions and Impoliteness in Croatian and Montenegrin Public Discourse. Poznańskie Studia Slawistyczne, (9), 123-148. https://doi.org/10.14746/pss.2015.9.8
Section
EMOTYWNY ASPEKT JĘZYKA W SŁOWIAŃSKIM DYSKURSIE PUBLICZNYM

References

  1. Archer D.E., 2008, Verbal Aggression and Impoliteness: Related or Synonymous?, in: Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, eds. D. Bousfield, M. Locher, Berlin, p. 181–210.
  2. Bousfield D., 2007, Beginnings, middles and ends: A biopsy of the dynamics of impolite exchanges, “Journal of Pragmatics” no. 39, p. 2185–2216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.005
  3. Bousfield D., 2008a, Impoliteness in Interaction, Amsterdam. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.167
  4. Bousfield D., 2008b, Impoliteness in the Struggle for Power, in: Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, eds. D. Bousfield, M. Locher, Berlin, p. 127–154.
  5. Bugarski R., 1997, Jezik u društvenoj krizi, Beograd.
  6. Bülow-Møller A.M., 2003, Second-hand Emotion: Interpreting Attitudes, <http://hdl.handle.net/10077/2466>, 18.10.2014.
  7. Culpeper J., Bousfield D., Wichmann A., 2003, Impoliteness revisited: with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects, “Journal of Pragmatics” no. 351, p. 1545–1579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00118-2
  8. Culpeper J., 2005, Impoliteness and ‘The Weakest Link’, “Journal of Politeness Research” no. 1, p. 35–72.
  9. Culpeper J., 2008, Reflections on Impoliteness, Relational Work and Power, in: Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, eds. D. Bousfield, M. Locher, Berlin.
  10. Culpeper J., 2011, Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence, Cambridge.
  11. Čupić Č., 2009, Politička kultura i mediji, „Godišnjak Fakulteta političkih znanosti” no. 3, p. 339–353.
  12. Đerić G., 2008, Intima javnosti, Beograd.
  13. Dynel M., 2012, Setting our House in order: The workings of impoliteness in multiparty film discourse, “Journal of Politeness Research” no. 8, p. 161–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/pr-2012-0010
  14. Edwards D., 1999, Emotion Discourse, “Culture and Psychology” no. 5, p. 271–291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354067X9953001
  15. Felberg T.R., Šarić Lj., 2013, Discursive Construction of Language Identity through Disputes in Croatian and Montenegrin Media, „Scando-Slavica” no. 59, p. 73–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00806765.2012.740255
  16. Haarmann H., 1999, History, in: Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity, ed. J.A. Fishman, New York, p. 60–76.
  17. Haugh M., 2007, The discursive challenge to politeness research: An interaction alternative, “Journal of Politeness Research” no. 3, p. 295–317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/pr.2007.013
  18. Holmes J., Marra M., Schnurr S., 2008, Impoliteness and ethnicity: Māori and Pākehā discourses in New Zealand workplaces, “Journal of Politeness Research” no. 4, p. 193–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2008.010
  19. Hraste M., 1953, O ženskim prezimenima, „Jezik: časopis za kulturu hrvatskoga književnog jezika” no. 2, p. 136–140.
  20. Hutchby I., 2008, Participants’ orientations to interruptions, rudeness and other impolite acts in talk-in-interaction, “Journal of Politeness Research” no. 4, p. 221–241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2008.011
  21. IIşık-Güler H., Ruhi Ş., 2010, Face and impoliteness at the intersection with emotions: A corpus-based study in Turkish, “Intercultural Pragmatics” no. 7, p. 625–660.
  22. Jakšić B. (ed.), 1996, Ka jeziku mira, Beograd.
  23. Jones T.S., 2001, Emotional communication in conflict: essence and impact, in: The Language of Conflict and Resolution, eds. W.F. Eadie, P.E. Nelson, Thousand Oaks–London–New Delhi, p. 81–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452205496.n6
  24. Kienpointner M., 2008, Impoliteness and emotional arguments, “Journal of Politeness Research” no. 4, p. 243–265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2008.012
  25. Kolstø P., 2009, Media Discourse and the Yugoslav Conflicts: Representation of Self and Other, Cornwall.
  26. Kordić S., 2010, Jezik i nacionalizam, Zagreb.
  27. Locher M.A., Watts R.J., 2008, Relational Work and Impoliteness: Negotiating Norms of Linguistic Behaviour, in: Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, eds. D. Bousfield, M. Locher, Berlin, p. 77–79.
  28. Langlotz A., Locher M.A., 2012, Ways of communicating emotional stance in online disagreements, “Journal of Pragmatics” no. 44, p. 1591–1606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.04.002
  29. Langlotz A., Locher M.A., 2013, The role of emotions in relational work, “Journal of Pragmatics” no. 58, p. 87–107.
  30. Paltridge B., 2012, Discourse Analysis, London.
  31. Pandžić Z., 2009, Od Galileja do zlatne ptičice, „Republika” no. 7, p. 138–164.
  32. Perović M.A., Silić J., Vasiljeva Lj., 2010, Pravopis crnogorskoga jezika, Podgorica. R.T. Sad imaju viška slova, „Dan”, , 18.09.2010.
  33. Šarić Lj., Felberg T.R., 2015, Realizations and functions of impoliteness in discourse about language and identity in Croatian and Montenegrin, in: Impoliteness in Media Discourse, ed. A. Bączkowska, Frankfurt.
  34. Savić S., Mitro V., 1998, Psovke!!!, Novi Sad.
  35. Spencer-Oatey H., 2007, Theories of identity and the analysis of face, “Journal of Pragmatics”no. 39, p. 639–656. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.004
  36. Zelić-Bučan B., 1971, Narodni naziv hrvatskog jezika tijekom hrvatske povijesti, „Jezik” no. 1, p. 38–48.